Well it isn't Qantas after the Bangkok accident and it certainly isn't El Al (remember Amsterdam and a certain 747 crash?).

This is an unanswerable question - as Iwrite every time it comes up.

Just as Concorde was thought to be the safest aircraft until last July (it wasn't, until then one hadn't crashed but there had been many safety incidents), it is statistically now relatively unsafe on the basis of percentage of airframe losses.

An airline might injure a few dozen passengers one year, according to the statistics (but they may all be hurt in one turbulence incident) and that- until then - very safe airline slips down the ratings.

Had the Qantas 747 at Bangkok carried on a few yards further at a somewhat faster speed, there would have been deaths. The accident preserved the Qantas safety myth in the public mind and Qantas spent a fortune and bucked their insurer's decision to scrap the aircraft so that they could continue their record of not losing a jet hull. Yet the report slams the CRM and the company standards and training.

P.S. Whats the deal with Midwest Express getting a "D"? I was kind of surprised by that.

All they look at is the number of accidents compared to the number of departures. Midwest Experss has only had one fatal accident, but they are a small and relatively young airline, so their "accident rate" is calculated to be higher than other carriers.

" The accident preserved the Qantas safety myth in the public mind and Qantas spent a fortune and bucked their insurer's decision to scrap the aircraft so that they could continue their record of not losing a jet hull."

Southwest Airlines has one of the best safety records if not the best. However, I don't know if Southwest would be catagorized as one of the industries major airlines compared with Quantas, United, El Al and the rest.